New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1887-06-18
SHARP TRIED TO BRIBE HIM
A FORNER ASSEMBLY EXERCISING CLERKS
STARTLING TESTIMONY.
n. SAYS THAT SHARP MADE DIRECT AND PER-
aoyAL OFFER OF MONEY TO HIM-$5,O00
FOR THE INSERTION OF FOUR WORDS

H. SAYS THAT SHAkP MADE a DinbNA AM fN''
sovAL OFFER OF MONEY TO HIM-S5,OOO
FOR THE INSERTION OF FOUR WORDS
IN THE GENERAL RAILROAD BILL
Tho sensation OF the Sharp trial Of yesterday was IN
the afternoon session. when witness suddenly poppea
mn who testified that sharp had tried TO prioe MN VII"
$4,000 to insert the words Broadway anu rn'r"No
in the General Railroad act Of 1883 Inc Witness wal
the engrossng clerk of the Assembly, anu tue insertion
WAS 70 be made on the last day OF the session. Inc al
INSTABILITY OF tho evidence Proouooo u" A''"s "''
custom
there was great deal Of evidence introduced In the
morning session. that judging by the languid inter
est shown In It, had nothing to do with the case But
IL afforded Mr. stckney ample opportunities to make Cd
iectiops He seems to derive as much Satisfaction iro
making affections and securing exceptions as pase-
hall plaver does from making home runs And JACOB
sbarns little ewes etmes twinkle with appreciation
when Mr. Stickney does It,
Fond as Mr. sticney is Of making objections for MS
side he likes to do all the Directing himself once ex
Nelson thought he mapping and broke in with
awe object"
Ahno your Honor" saidMr stickney deliberately
ne does nothing in hurry. "We-ah-we-we don't
ob,ectp Ex,Judge Nelson bushed but acquesced, while
everybody in the courtroom Uttered
HOW FULLGRAFF USED HIS $4,000.
Thomas " Brown, formerly bookkeeper for Reed q
Canrck was the first witness called for the people ne
testise that he knew ex Alderman Fulgra Mr. Stick
new objected to his answering questions with reler
snce TO the loan of $4,000 which Fulgraf had testhed
that he made TO the firm Of Reed CarnrcK on the
ground that such evidence did not tend to
Fuerafrs testimony that he received money from De
Lacey "The view take" said Judge Barrett, is that
any evidence which would be admissible II Fuligran
were indicted for bribery admissible at this stage OF
the case and the evidence offered Is independent
evidenee tending TO show HIS guilt" Judge Barrett
accordingly overrled the objection MT sucKhey 'neh
made a wholesale objection In advance against e'eiy
thing the witness might say, as irrelevant, nsteai
and incompetent" and credited with an exception
with big E. but It didn't satisfy him, and he continued
to score all the exceptions he could muster.
In answer to questions from Mr.. Nicon, but with
frequent pauses due to objections from MI StcKney MT
Brown testified that he received for the firm $sooo ou
Mr. Fullgraff-$7,O00 on February 4, 1885, ana $Aooo
on the next day. He drew up note for the amount
which Mr. Carnrick signed and which was given to Mr.
Fullcra In the money were five or six 81 900 bills
Fullgra told him when he made the first payment tna'
he intended to make the loan S10000 subsequently ne
said that he had only $1,000 The note which was pro-
duced in court had the signature torn Of IL was GUS
tomary for the firm do that when the notes were PAID
He did not know the note back into the pos
session Of the firm when the amuont was Repaid as
he was no longer In the employ OF the firm
MR.. sTETsoN's WORK AT ALBANY.
Francis L. stetson was then placed on the stand He
said that he acted professionally for Mr. Sharp during
the summer and winter OF 1884 During september,
1888 he received from Sharp copy of proposed bill
with reference to street railways TO be introduced al
Albany He would produce the bill without an order
from the court as he regarded ii professional com
munication After some discussion Mr. Nicon said that
for the present he would not demand the production OF
the bill
owhat did do with reference to the BIZ Al re-
S ANA S Sn S
uhi
from 1iS't that lat bill WV
For his services in this matter Mr. stetson received
1881 OF which $500 was in checks signed by sharp,
the remainder in checks signed by foshay he some
times saw Mr.. Sharp at Albany.
"Dd you see Lawson n. Fuller therer asked Mr..
Nicoll
well" replied Mr.. stetson. glancing at Mr. Fuller,
who was in the room Mr. Fuller has pervaded tho
atmosphere of these railways much that 1t is impos
sibe for say whether saw him at Albany or not
but very likely did" GLaughter.l
Mr. stetson said that there were no lawyers associated
with him, but many lawyers were there watching him.
He had seen Abram Dsbecker there He would not un-
dertake 10 say whether he was lobbyist or not
and of course Mr. Stickney objected to the question
Sharp and Disbccker were generally at A3Shy 3gether
Perhap he had Sharp there without Dsbecke pnt
be sOnd rot be esF2n q maj acO he ssd sc
coed in surrounding Mr. Sharp with some sort OF snOAe
that may nsoe Shown and the charge
AGAINST Mr.. sharp" Neverheless judge Barrett al,
about what he did in Albany in connection with street
railway legislation much as he did before the senate IN
yestigating Committee
JUNGLE JAKE" WAS LOOKING AFTER THINGS.
Then Mr. stickney took hold of Mr.. stetson.
Odd you understand Mr. sharp retained Jon IN his
Ind Vi SsRaS mad %h @
House Albany He began to untold 70 me t9s y stem %
and Seventh Avenue 1t has southern outlet II
ey M Se MT steson stopped mOment Shall
say lu us w feneonras,nglv)-oh yes 90 on.
Mr. se,sonS Well Mr sharp SAID Il am here to look
Old untI, Sharp viii be dead and them said he who
will lock after them"
Mr.. stiekuey piled Mr. stetson with many questions,
the answers to which tended TO show that Mr. stetsons
business at Albany had been OF thoroughly reputable
It was part of Mr. stetson's understanding with Mr.
Sham that he would support bill that did not contain
some provision for selling the Broadway franchise
MI NicO--Dd you not retire from professional employ,
%sn in tho matter you which the city woad re-
S Ssi'a,' virtually no remuneratiOni
Mr. steson admitted this his chief reason, the
other being that he was unwilling 10 anpear 10 opPos
ton Old chief, Mr. Whitney VINO was Interested IN
what reason he had given to Robinson, scribner q
Bright for declining to continue further In the matter
Mr. steson replied that TO that firm he gave as reason
only his dl alike 10 appear In opposition 10 Mr. Whitney.
Mr. Bright able lawyer aud II was unnecessary 70
Judge Barrett granted. application of Mr.. Nico.
attachment against Daniel D. Con9ver. ne wasn't
present respond TO his name when called athougn ne
was in the courtroom on the day previous whe fui-
graf was tesfying
COLONEL BLISS FELL INTO GOOD THING.
Colonel George Bliss next called TO the witness
stand He had temporarily abandoned the de-
tights Of the honeymoon at Lake George
that he might testify in this case. With
cheerful alacrity Colonel Bliss told what a good
thing he had made out Of bis professional connection
with the Broadway Surface Railroad. 1t lasted only
about two months and from 1t he received retaining
fee of 81 500 from Mr. Richmondhis personal check
and aiterward ten 81 900 bonds OF the company handed
him by Mr. Richmond These he received the day AFTER
the cars began running aud he subsequently sold them
for S1l700. ,,,,, ~,
"Apd then you got married" said Mr. Parsons
Colonel Bliss laughed with the air OF man whose
happiness was proof against any amount OF chan lie
said that he had gone before the Board OF some
passage and protested against the giving OF the
franchise to the Broadway Surface Company without
compensation. He thought the payment Of lump sum
absurd. He favored scheme OF percentage payments
The day after this public announcement OF MS views
representatives OF all the Broadway railroad schemes
- Inn Da n